>>> CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS WANT TO CUT UP NEARLY $100 MILLION FROM THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR YOU?

IDAHO SENATOR MIKE CRAPO JOINS US TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

STAY TUNED.

"DIALOGUE" IS NEXT.

>> HELLO, I'M JOAN CARTAN-HANSEN.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

THIS WEEK HOUSE REPUBLICANS ANNOUNCED PLANS TO CUT $60-100 BILLION FROM THE FEDERAL BUDGET.

THEY SUPPORT THE ELIMINATION OF PROGRAMS LIKE AMERICORP, THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING, AND POLICE HIRING GRANTS.

IT COULD MEAN CUTS TO PROGRAMS LIKE FOOD FOR AID TO PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.

EVEN AREAS LIKE HOMELAND SECURITY AND VETERANS ACCOUNTS ARE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.

IDAHO'S SENIOR SENATOR MIKE CRAPO WAS A MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT OBAMA'S BIPARTISAN NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND REFORM, AND AS A MEMBER OF BOTH THE SENATE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEES, HE IS IN A KEY POSITION TO INFLUENCE WHAT PROGRAMS GET CUT AND WHAT TAXES IF ANY GET RAISED.

HE JOINS US NOW FROM WASHINGTON, DC I HAVE A OUR TELECONFERENCING SYSTEM.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

I APPRECIATE YOU JOINING US, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT'S TWO HOURS LATER.

>> IT'S GREAT TO BE WITH YOU.

>> OCCASIONALLY YOU MIGHT GET PIXELATED, BUT IT'S OUR FIRST ATTEMPT, WE'LL GIVE IT A TRY.

WE WANT TO YOU JOIN THE CONVERSATION.

GIVE US A CALL, TOLL-FREE AT 1-800-973-9800.

BEFORE WE CONTINUE, LET ME TOSS IN A LITTLE ECONOMIC PRIMER HERE.

THE DEFICIT IS BASICALLY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THE GOVERNMENT BRINGS IN AND THE AMOUNT IT SPENDS EACH YEAR.

SO THE U.S.

GOVERNMENT IS EXPECTED TO PUT ABOUT $1.5 TRILLION ON THE NATIONAL CREDIT CARD.

THE NATIONAL DEBT IS THE AMOUNT WE HAVE BORROWED OVER THE YEARS TO DEAL WITH THAT DEFICIT.

SO YOU CAN SEE WE'VE GOT THE DEFICIT AND AT $1.5 TRILLION, AND THE NATIONAL DEBT, THAT'S THE AMOUNT WE BORROWED, AND THAT NATIONAL DEBT IS NOW OVER $14 TRILLION.

THIS YEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS PROPOSED A $3.83 TRILLION OVERALL FEDERAL BUDGET.

THESE ARE LARGE NUMBERS TO GET YOUR HEAD WRAPPED AROUND.

LET ME START WITH THE BUDGET CUTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED FOR THIS CURRENT BUDGET YEAR BY YOUR COLLEAGUES ACROSS THE WAY, DO YOU SUPPORT THOSE CUTS LEYTE LAID OUT BY THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS TODAY?

OR THIS WEEK?

>> WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE SPECIFICS OF THOSE CUTS HERE IN THE SENATE YET.

YOU MENTIONED SOME THAT ARE GETTING RECORDED ON, IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT ULTIMATELY COMES OVER.

BUT I STRONGLY DO, YES, SUPPORT THE NOTION THAT WE HAVE TO SAVE AT LEAST 50-100 BILLION DOLLARS IN THIS CURRENT YEAR'S BUDGET AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH.

WHAT I'VE SAID IS EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ON THE TABLE, AND AS SOON AS CONGRESS STARTS TO PEAR BACK ITS SPENDING, EVERYBODY WHO IS FROM ANY PARTICULAR INTEREST STARTS TO COME FORWARD AND SAY, NOT ME, AND UNFORTUNATELY I JUST HAVE TO SAY BACK, WE CANNOT DELAY ANY LONGER.

THE NUMBERS YOU JUST SHOWED, PAINT A PICTURE OF INCREDIBLE THREAT TO AMERICA, AND WE'VE GOT TO TAKE ACTION.

>> HOW DO YOU BALANCE THE NEED TO MEET THE BUDGET TARGETS WITH YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF 19 IDAHO?

>> WELL, FIRST AND FOREMOST, LET ME SAY THAT THE INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE IN IDAHO AND THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS NATION IS THAT WE MAINTAIN A STRONG STABLE FISCAL POLICY IN THIS COUNTRY.

IF WE DO NOT GET A HANDLE ON OUR FISCAL PROBLEMS, THE KIND OF ECONOMIC DEVASTATION THAT WE WILL SEE IN THE COUNTRY IS CATASTROPHIC.

AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN OVERSTATE HOW GREAT THIS RISK IS AND HOW CLOSE IT IS TO US RIGHT NOW.

THE SECOND POINT, I REALLY STRONGLY BELIEVE THOUGH WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET INTO THE WEEDS AND IDENTIFY PROGRAM BY PROGRAM AND PROJECT BY PROJECT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, I THINK WE WILL DETERIORATE INTO A POLITICAL FIGHT THAT WILL BE UNSUCKS SAYSFUL IF WE DON'T FIRST CREATE WHAT I CALL THE STRAIGHT JACKET.

IN OTHER WORDS, CREATE SPENDING TARGETS AND CAPS THAT WILL BE BINDING ON CONGRESS THROUGHOUT THE NEXT DECADE AND PUT TOGETHER PROTEST PROTECTIONS THAT KEEP CONGRESS ON THAT SPENDING PATH, AND ESTABLISH THAT STRAIGHT JACKET FIRST AND THEN REQUIRE EACH CONGRESS TO DEAL WITH THE NUMBERS THEY HAVE TO FACE.

>> WE HAD AN EMAIL COME IN FROM JEFF WHO COMMENTED, CONGRESS'S FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS SHOULD NOT BE DEBT REDUCTION, BUT SHOULD BE JOB CREATION.

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, JOBS IS THE ISSUE.

BUT WE WILL NOT SEE A STRONG JOB CLIMATE IN AMERICA UNTIL WE GET A HANDLE ON OUR FISCAL POLICY.

THEY ARE ACHIEVING THE SAME OBJECTIVES.

AND THERE IS A NOTION, THERE IS A COMPETING PHILOSOPHY, IT'S ONE THAT'S PREVAILED, AND THAT IS THAT WE CAN CREATE JOBS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL BY JUST CONTINUING TO SPEND OUR WAY THROUGH IT.

THE PROBLEM IS, THOSE DEBT NUMBERS YOU HAVE SHOWN ARE CREATING A DRAG ON THE ECONOMY, TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT INCREASED BORROWING TO CREATE JOBS IS A FAULTY PREP US.

WHAT WE'VE GOT TO DO IS TO STABILIZE OUR ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, AND THEN FOCUS ON THE KINDS OF TRUE GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS THAT WILL STIMULATE AND CREATE A STRONG JOB MARKET.

WHAT I'LL -- TO SUMMARIZE, SAY THAT IF WE WANT TO HAVE A STRONG ECONOMY AND VIBRANT JOB GROWTH IN AMERICA, WE WILL PUT OURSELVES ON A FISCAL PATH TOWARD SUSTAINED CONSERVATIVE FISCAL POLICY RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO TRY TO SPEND OURSELVES INTO MORE JOBS AND MORE PROSPERITY ON BORROWED MONEY.

>> THERE WAS A CONCERN EXPRESSED THAT THE CUTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED WOULD MEAN A FAIR NUMBER OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WOULD BE LAID OFF, AND THEN THE SPINOFF OF -- A LARGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES FROM PRIVATE CONTRACTORS, AM THESE PEOPLE ARE LAYING OFF, IS THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY ABLE TO ABSORB THOSE PEOPLE INTO THE SYSTEM?

ARE THERE ENOUGH JOBS OUT THERE, OR ARE WE GOING TO ADD MORE UNEMPLOYMENT?

>> EVERY TIME WE TRY TO PARE BACK THE GROWTH IN FEDERAL SPENDING, THE ARGUMENT IS MADE, WAIT, THAT WILL COST JOBS.

AND IN REALITY, IN A VERY SHORT-TERM LOOK, IT'S TRUE THAT IN SPECIFIC DECISIONS THERE MAY SOMEBODY JOB LOSSES OR SOME JOB REALLOCATION.

BUT I HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE MAJOR POINT.

IF WE COULD SPEND OURSELVES THROUGH THIS, THEN WE WOULD NEVER HAVE A DOWNTURN IN OUR ECONOMY, BECAUSE EVERY TIME WE GOT INTO TROUBLE, WE WOULD JUST BORROW MORE MONEY AND SPEND MORE MONEY, AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE FINE.

ACTUALLY, THAT HAS WORK ORDER A SHORT-TERM BASIS FOR A NUMBER OF DECADES NOW, EXCEPT THAT WE KEEP PILING UP THAT DEBT.

AND NOW THAT -- THE ECONOMISTS TELL US OUR DEBT, THE NUMBERS YOU SHOWED ARE DEBT THAT IS 90-PLUS PERCENT OF OUR GDP.

ECONOMISTS HAVE TOLD US WHEN AN ECONOMY GETS TO THAT POINT, THE BOND MARKET AND THE ECONOMY ITSELF START BECOMING SUCH -- SO DRAGGED DOWN, THAT WE SEE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES THAT FAR EXCEED ANY POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH SHORT-TERM JOB REALLOCATION IN TERMS OF CONGRESSIONAL SPENDING.

>> LET'S GET TO OUR FIRST CALLER.

DAVID IN BOISE.

GO AHEAD.

>> Caller: OK.

EVERY TIME WE GO THROUGH THESE THINGS TO CUT PROGRAMS, WE ALWAYS SELECTIVELY PICK THIS PROGRAM OR THAT PROGRAM.

AND SO PRETTY SOON IT'S A FINITE -- A FINE IDEA, UNTIL MY OX IS GORED.

WHY DON'T WE DO A STRAIGHT PERCENTAGE OFF OF EVERY PART OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND -- >> AN ACROSS THE BOARD CUT.

>> THAT WAY EVERYBODY WOULD THINK IT'S A FAIRER DEAL.

>> LET'S ASK ABOUT THAT.

>> I ACTUALLY AGREE 100%.

I HAVE CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT MY TIME IN SERVICE IN WASHINGTON, DC ADVOCATED THAT TO AVOID THE FOOD FIGHTS, IF YOU WILL, THAT OCCUR ONCE WE GET DOWN INTO THE DETAILS OF PROGRAM BY PROGRAM DECISION MAKING, THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE A CROSS THE BOARD CUTS.

AND I AM IN THE MINORITY.

I KNOW WITH THE CALLER THAT'S TWO OF US, BUT THERE AREN'T A MAJORITY IN CONGRESS WHO AGREE WITH THAT.

AND THE REASON IS, AND IT'S ACTUALLY A REASON THAT HAS SOME MERIT, THE REASON IS THAT THOSE WHO ADVOCATE CUTTING AND ADDRESSING THE BUDGET EFFECTIVELY SAY THAT SOME PROGRAMS SHOULD BE TOTALLY ELIMINATE AND OTHERS SHOULD PROBABLY BE STRENGTHENED.

AND THAT'S PROBABLY RIGHT.

SO WHAT I'VE COME TO, AND WHAT I THINK MAY BE THE KEY TO UNLOCKING THE POLITICAL GRIDLOCK THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, IS WHAT I REFERENCED EARLIER.

AND THAT IS, CREATE THE STRAIGHT JACKET THAT SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO TALK DETAILS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT EACH YEAR CONGRESS HAS TO REDUCE ITS SPENDING TO THESE DESIGNATED LEVELS.

SO WE CAN SAVE THOSE DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT DECADE.

AND THEN CREATE THAT STRAIGHT JACKET WHICH IS SORT OF LIKE SAYING IT'S AN ACROSS THE BOARD CUT, BUT THEN TELL CONGRESS THAT ON A YEARLY BAYIS -- BASIS THEY'VE GOT TO PUT THE DETAIL WORK TO IT.

THAT WAY WE KNOW WE'LL HIT THE TARGET, BUT WE CAN LET CONGRESS FIND THE BEST WAY TO ACHIEVE THAT TARGET.

>> THE BIPARTISAN PLAN THAT COMMISSION CAME UP WITH, THAT YOU VOTED FOR AND SUPPORTED, DID NOT GET UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY YOUR COLLEAGUES.

WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT?

>> WELL, YOU'RE RIGHT.

LET ME JUST REMIND OUR VIEWERS, THE PRESIDENT CREATED THIS COMMISSION, IT HAD 18 MEMBERS.

THREE SENATORS AND THREE CONGRESSMEN FROM EACH PARTY AND SIX APPOINTEES BY THE PRESIDENT.

AND THE PRESIDENT WHEN HE CREATED ED SAID IN ORDER FOR IT TO MOVE FORWARD TO A VOTE ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE OR THE HOUSE, HIT TO HAVE 14 OUT OF THE 18 VOTES IN FAVOR OF IT.

THAT'S SOMETHING LIKE 75 OR 70% OF THE VOTES.

AND WE GOT 11 OUT OF THE 18.

I'LL REMIND EVERYBODY THAT 11 OUT OF THE 18 WAS MORE THAN 60% OF THE VOTES, WHICH WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO BEAT A FILIBUSTER IN THE SENATE.

SO IT WAS VERY STRONGLY SUPPORTED, BUT IT DIDN'T GET ENOUGH VOTES TO GET THROUGH.

SO YOUR QUESTION WAS, WHAT'S THOOPPED IT NOW.

THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH WOULD HAVE REDUCED OUR DEBT OVER THE NEXT DECADE BY $4 TRILLION, AND IN MY OPINION WOULD HAVE BEEN A HUGE BIG, BOLD STEP TOWARDS CORRECTING OUR FISCAL PROBLEMS, THOUGH NOT THE ULTIMATE STEP, THIS PROGRAM IS NOW ALTHOUGH NOT FORMALLY FORCED BEFORE THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE, A NUMBER OF US IN THE SENATE, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE OFF OF THE TEMPLATE THAT THE FISCAL PLAN CREATED, AND COME FORWARD WITH LEGISLATION THAT IS JUST AS STRONGND JUST AS BOLD AND WILL ESSENTIALLY BE OFF THE SAME TEMPLATE, AS WAS DONE BY THE COMMISSION.

I'M A PART OF A NEGOTIATING TEAM THAT IS RIGHT NOW WORKING TO TRY TO CREATE THAT LEGISLATION.

IT FOCUSES ON OUR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, OUR ENTITLEMENT SPENDING AND POWERFUL AND I THINK VERY HELPFUL REFORM OF OUR TAX CODE.

AND I'M NOT TALKING TAX INCREASES, I'M TALKING REFORMING OUR CODE TO MAKE IT LESS EXPENSIVE, MORE EFFICIENT, AND TO MAKE AMERICA MORE COMPETITIVE GLOBALLY.

AND THOSE ARE THE KIND RS OF THINGS THAT WILL HELP TURN US AROUND.

>> LET'S GET TO OUR NEXT CALLER, BUZZ IN MERIDIAN.

>> Caller: I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO HEAR MY QUESTION TONIGHT.

I CAN SEE THAT YOU PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM THERE IN THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE BUCKING A HUGE CORPORATION MONEY LOBBY TO GET SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS INITIATED TO SAVE SOME MONEY.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT WHEN THESE ARE THE VERY PEOPLE THAT GET YOU ELECTED?

>> THAT'S A VERY WISE QUESTION.

AND IT'S NOT JUST CORPORATE LOBBYING.

LITERALLY, I MEAN IT, WHEN WE VOTED FOR THIS COMMISSION PLAN, WHICH WAS ACROSS THE BOARD, IT HIT EVERY PROGRAM, EVERY PROJECT, AND EVERY PART OF GOVERNMENT.

I'LL TELL YOU, THE FIGHTING STARTED.

THE ATTACKS STARTED.

AND IT WAS FROM EVERY PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU CAN THINK OF IN AMERICAN POLITICS.

BECAUSE AS YOU INDICATE, THOSE WHOSE INTERESTS ARE PUT ON THE TABLE ARE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING THEY TO BE MAKE SURE THAT IT'S SOME OTHER PART OF GOVERNMENT OR SOME OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT OUR COUNTRY NEEDS.

AND YOUR QUESTION IS HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT.

AGAIN, I'LL COME BACK TO MY POINT.

I BELIEVE THAT IF WE DEAL WITH IT FIRST BY CREATING THAT STRAIGHT JACKET, BY CREATING THE FISCAL TARGETS, MAKING THEM CAPS AND PUTTING STRONG PROCESS REFORMS IN PLACE, THAT WE WILL GET BROAD PUBLIC SUPPORT AT THAT POINT FOR CREATING THE STRAIGHT JACKET.

THEN WE NEED TO GO IN WHEN THE STRAIGHT JACKET IS CREATED, THEN WE NEED TO GO IN AND GET INTO THE DETAIL WORK.

GET INTO THE WEEDS AND HAVE THE POLITICAL BATTLE THAT WILL NECESSARILY TAKE PLACE WHEN WE PUT THE DETAIL TO THOSE BROADER TARGETS.

THAT WAY AT LEAST WE WON'T BE DEBATING ABOUT WHETHER TO DO IT, BUT WE'LL BE DEBATE BALL GAME HOW TO DO IT, AND AT THAT POINT WHEN EVERYBODY IN AMERICA REALIZES THAT THEY AND EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA ARE A PART OF THIS, BUT THAT IT IS GOING TO HAPPENV TO HAPPEN, THEN I THINK WE'LL HAVE A MORE SUCCESSFUL PROCESS IN WHICH WE CAN ACHIEVE THE DETAILS.

>> LET'S GO TO JIM IN TWIN FALLS.

JIM?

>> Caller: GOOD EVENING, SIR.

I'D LIKE TO KNOW FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE CEREBRAL PALSY AND I'M ON MEDICAID, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO FOR THE BUDGET CUTS WITH HEALTH INSURANCE?

>> WELL, WITH REGARD TO THE -- YOU MAY BE REFERRING TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND I APOLOGIZE I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THE STATE OF IDAHO IS DEALING WITH ITS MEDICAID BUDGET.

BUT WITH REGARD TO THE FEDERAL -- GO AHEAD, JOAN.

>> THE STATE IS FACING FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT CUTS TO MEDICAID, ESPECIALLY FOR ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES.

I DID HEAR A RUMOR THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMING TO THE AID OF STATES.

SPECIFICALLY FOR MEDICAID SERVICES, AS THEY ARE, AS THEY'VE PROPOSED LOOKING AT HELPING THE STATES WITH UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COSTS.

HAVE YOU HEARD ANY -- >> YES.

YES, I HAVE HEARD ABOUT THAT.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING.

I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THE CALLER WAS GOING IN THAT DIRECTION.

THAT'S THE FEDERAL PART OF THE ANSWER.

AND AT THIS POINT IN THE LAW, THERE IS ACTUALLY AN INCREASED FEDERAL PARTICIPATION TO HELP THE STATE WAS THEIR MEDICAID BUDGET.

>> AND THAT'S ABOUT TO GO AWAY.

>> THAT'S ABOUT TO EXPIRE.

SO THE QUESTION IS, WILL THE GOVERNMENT CONTINUE THAT MEDICAID SUPPORT?

I BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL PROBABLY BE SOME CONTINUED SUPPORT, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE NEED TO GET MORE EFFICIENT AND MORE EFFECTIVE AT DEALING WITH OUR MEDICAID DOLLARS AND THE STATE GOVERNORS ARE SAYING TO US, LET US HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THIS WITHOUT THE FEDERAL COOKIE CUTTER RESTRICTED SOLUTIONS IMPOSED ON US AND LET US TRY TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS.

SOME STATES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET PERMISSION TO USE THEIR OWN APPROACHES, AND THEY'VE ACTUALLY BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN REDUCING THE BUDGET, BUT NOT LOSING BENEFITS AND MAINTAINING BENEFITS.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE WE'VE GOT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IF WE GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN A POSITION OF BASICALLY COVERING ALL OF THE DEBT THAT THE STATES ARE STARTING TO RACK UP BY THEIR SPENDING, THEN WE WILL SIMPLY SEE THAT ECONOMIC CALAMITY THAT I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN THE SHOW HAPPEN SOONER.

SO I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT WE'VE GOT TO START TIGHTENING OUR BELT, BUT I BELIEVE IN THE MEDICAID AREA, WE ARE STARTING TO SHOW THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE PHENOMENALLY GOOD RESULT IFS WE'LL JUST ALLOW THE STATES TO BECOME THAT PLACE WHERE WE INVESTIGATE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO SOLVING THESE PROBLEMS.

>> WE HAD A NUMBER OF FACEBOOK VIEWERS WHO SENT IN QUESTIONS ABOUT HEALTH CARE AND OBAMACARE, THE REPEEFL OBAMACARE.

ONE OF THEM ASKED -- WANTED TO KNOW WITHOUT THE CURRENT OBAMA HEALTH CARE LAW, WHAT WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO REPLACE IT, ESPECIALLY FOR THE PERSON WHO GETS CANCER AND DOESN'T HAVE INSURANCE, AS DID YOU AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHEN YOU HAD CANCER THAT COVERED YOUR MEDICAL EXPENSES?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I STILL STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD TOTALLY REPEAL THE HEALTH CARE BILL.

AND BY THE WAY, THAT IS BECAUSE OF POLICY REASONS IN TERMS OF OBJECTIONS TO WHAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE HEALTH CARE BILL ITSELF.

IT WILL NOT DRIVE DOWN HEALTH CARE COSTS, IT WILL DRIVE THEM UP AND WE ARE SEEING THAT ACROSS AMERICA RIGHT NOW.

BUT IF WE DID REPEAL IT, WE WOULD SEE ABOUT DWODZ.5 TRILLION MUCH SAVINGS IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET AS WELL.

SO THERE'S A BUDGET SIDE AS WELL.

THE CALLER ASKED THE QUESTION OF WHAT WOULD I DO ABOUT SOMEONE WHO DID NOT HAVE INSURANCE?

WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IN THE UNITED STATES, THOSE WITHOUT INSURANCE QUITE OFTEN ARE PROVIDED MEDICAL CARE, BUT IT'S NOT THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF MEDICAL CARE, AND IT'S NOT THE KIND OF MEDICAL CARE OR QUALITY THAT THOSE WITH INSURANCE HAVE.

AND YET THE COST OF IT IS OFTEN MORE THAN THE COST OF INSURED MEDICAL CARE.

AND SO I PERSONALLY BELIEVE WE SHOULD CREATE A SAFETY NET TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COVER THOSE WHO ARE UNINSURED AND WHO TRULY CANNOT PURCHASE THEIR OWN INSURANCE, BUT DO SO IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT CREATE THE KIND OF EXPENSIVE FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN THE MARKETPLACE THAT THE HEALTH CARE BILL CREATES.

>> HOW DO WE SET THAT PROGRAM UP AND NOT SPEND ANY MONEY?

>> WELL, ACTUALLY, AS I INDICATED, WE ARE ALREADY SPENDING THAT MONEY.

THE FACT IS THAT THOSE WHO ARE UNINSURED PRIMARILY -- NOT ALWAYS, BUT IN MOST CASES THEY GET HEALTH CARE BUT THEY DON'T GET PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, THEY DON'T GET THE KIND OF STRONG MEDICINE THAT AN INSURED PERSON GETS AND THEN WHEN THEY DO GET INTO A CRISIS SITUATION, THEY'RE TREATED AT THE EMERGENCY CENTERS OR IN VERY EXPENSIVE PROCESSES.

IF WE WERE TO MOVE THAT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, IF YOU WILL, INTO ONE IN WHICH THERE WAS INSURANCE AVAILABLE, I ACTUALLY THINK WE COULD SAVE MONEY.

AND THERE ARE SOME STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT WE COULD DO THAT.

AND BY THE WAY, THE CALLER ALSO ASKED WHAT WOULD I PROPOSE IF WE GOT RID OF THE HEALTH CARE BILL.

AND I'M GLAD FOR THAT QUESTION, BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS THIS QUESTION, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED?

I BELIEVE THERE ARE VERY TEST AND WELL UNDERSTOOD SOLUTIONS THAT WE SIMPLY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BRING FORWARD IN THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE THAT WOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN HEALTH CARE COSTS.

THINGS LIKE ALLOWING COMPETITION, ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BUY INSURANCE ACROSS STATE LINES.

THAT INCREASES COMPETITION.

ALLOWING SMALL BUSINESSES TO POOL TOGETHER AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE STRENGTH OF NUMBERS THAT LARGE BUSINESSES HAVE.

THAT CAN HAVE PHENOMENAL REDUCTIONS IN THE COST OF INSURANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEES.

ALLOWING OUR SYSTEM TO BE CHANGED SO WE COMPENSATE FOR OUTCOMES RATHER THAN PROCEDURES.

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR AND RIGHT NOW THE EXPERTS ALL TELL US WE ARE INUNDATED WITH PROCEDURES BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE PAY FOR AND INSTEAD WE COULD SAVE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF WE PAY FOR OUTCOMES INSTEAD.

AND THE LIST GOES ON.

THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SOLID THINKING OUT THERE ABOUT THOSE THINGS THAT CAN REALLY REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTH CARE AND EXPAND ACCESS.

BUT LIKE I SAY, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE LAST HEALTH CARE BILL WAS ALL ABOUT, AND I STILL STRONGLY SUPPORT ITS REPEAL.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS A STATE ISSUE, IDAHO'S HOUSE IS TAKING UP THE ISSUE OF NULLIFICATION, THAT IDEA THAT THEY WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO SAY -- THE BILL SAYS TO RESIST FEDERAL LAW.

WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE STATE ARGUING THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE LAWS THAT YOU PASS IN THE SENATE?

>> WELL, LET ME JUST SAY FIRST AND FOREMOST, I START OUT MY ANALYSIS OF THIS ISSUE AND FRANKLY EVERY ISSUE THAT WE DEAL WITH BY REFERRING TO THE CONSTITUTION.

WHATEVER WE DO IN TERMS OF OUR SOLUTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL.

I KNOW THE ADVOCATES OF THE NULLIFICATION PROCEDURE SAY THAT IT IS GROUNDED IN CONSTITUTIONAL CASE LAW.

I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS WHO SAY IT'S NOT GROUNDED IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

I HAVEN'T READ THOSE CASES, SO I CAN'T REGISTER A LEGAL OPINION ON IT, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE WAY THAT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS IN AMERICA IS TESTED HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN THROUGH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

AND UNLESS WE ARE SHOWN THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ROUTE TO CHALLENGE LEGISLATION OTHERWISE, I THINK WE SHOULD STICK WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

I DO LIKE THE IDEA FRANKLY OF STATES BEING ABLE TO WEIGH IN, I DON'T THINK ONE STATE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO JUST DISREGARD FEDERAL LAW.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THE NOTION THAT STATES SHOULD HAVE SOME WAY TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT THEY CONSIDER TO BE UNREASONABLE FEDERAL MANDATE LIKE THIS HEALTH CARE BILL IS SOMETHING THAT DOES KIND OF TRIGGER A REACTION -- A POSITIVE REACTION IN MANY PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

LET'S REMEMBER, WHATEVER THE OUTCOME IS HERE, WE'VE GOT TO STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION.

>> LET ME -- THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AREAS TO TOUCH ON BESIDES FISCAL DEFICIT.

ONE OF THEM CAME FROM A VIEWER WHO SAID -- READ THAT THE CUTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY COULD BE FROM FIVE TO 38% IN THE AREA OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, THE CUTS OF 169 MILLION HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE BUDGET OF THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY.

WHAT DO YOU SEE HAS THE FUTURE OF THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY?

>> WELL, I THINK THE IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY HAS A STRONG FUTURE.

FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS A RENAISSANCE IN NUCLEAR ENERGY AND I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO GROW NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BECOME LESS DEPENDENT ON OIL.

AND AS WE BECOME MORE DIVERSIFIED IN OUR ENERGY PORCH, NUCLEAR POWER IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST THE BEST AND THE MOST POPULAR WAY TO MOVE.

AND WHEN I SAY THE BEST, I MEAN ECONOMICALLY.

IT IS THE CHOICE WE NEED TO MAKE IN OUR COUNTRY.

FOR A HUGE PART OF OUR ECONOMIC -- OUR ENERGY POLICY.

THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD PERSONALLY AS WE GET INTO THE DETAIL WORK ON CRAFTING OUR BUDGET, OPPOSE DRACONIAN CUTS IN OUR NUCLEAR BUDGET BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE ALSO NEED TO SOLVE OUR ENERGY CRISIS IN THIS COUNTRY, AND THAT NUCLEAR POWER WILL BE A KEY PART OF THAT.

I DON'T EXPECT YOU WOULD SEE THE KIND OF DRACONIAN CUTS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED OCCUR.

I KNOW THERE ARE SOME WHO WOULD TRY TO DO THAT, AND THAT GETS BACK TO THE PROCESS I DESCRIBED EARLIER F. WE CREATE A STRAIGHT JACKET TO GET CONGRESS UNDER CONTROL, THEN WE'LL GET INTO THE WEEDS AND START NEGOTIATING, AND IN THAT PROCESS, I WOULD ADVOCATE NUCLEAR POWER IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS THAT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS -- IT SHOULD NOT BE CUT SO DEEPLY, THOUGH EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ON THE TABLE.

>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE -- THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERN THAT THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S WILDLANDS INITIATIVE MAY IMPACT YOUR WORK THERE ON THE WITH A HEE AREA.

DO YOU HAVE ANY FEAR HAVE YOU BEEN DISCUSSING THE NEW POLICY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR?

>> YES, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEW WILDLANDS POLICY N. GENERAL BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH IT STRONGLY, AND SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE AREA.

YOU'LL RECALL WE SPECIFICALLY OVER EIGHT YEARS NEGOTIATED HOW ALL OF THE LAND IN THAT AREA WOULD BE MANAGED.

AND ABOUT -- IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, 300,000 ACRES WAS RELEASED FROM WILDERNESS STUDY AREA DESIGNATION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OTHER ACREAGE PUT INTO THE WILDERNESS STUDY AREA WOULD SATISFY THOSE NEEDS AND THAT THAT LAND WHICH IS RELEASED COULD THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OPEN BROAD MULTIPLE USE.

AND NOW THE POSSIBILITY WITH THIS ENTIRELY NEW REGULATORILY CREATED SYSTEM, WE COULD SEE THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COME IN AND CREATE ANOTHER DESIGNATION THAT WOULD UNDO THE INTENT OF THOSE AGREEMENTS AND THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.

THAT BEING SAID, YES, I HAVE TALKED TO OFFICIALS AT THE BLM, I'VE TALKED TO THEM AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND I ARE -- I HAVE RECEIVED VERBAL ASSURANCES FROM THEM THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THIS, AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PARTICULAR AREA IS ONE OF THE AREAS ON WHICH CONGRESS HAS SPOKEN.

AND THAT THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARD THEIR DELIBERATION WAS REGARD TO THIS WILDLAND DESIGNATION.

IT NOT A GUARANTEE, BUT AT LEAST WE'VE THISH THAT CONVERSATION AND THEY HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A CONGRESSIONALLY APPROVED LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN IN PLACE, AND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERING WITH IT.

>> WE'RE RAPIDLY RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

FOR THE VIEWERS WHO ARE WITH US ON THE PHONE, STAY WITH US, WE'LL CATCH YOU ON THE OTHER SIDE TO TAPE OUR WEB EXTRA.

THE SENATOR HAS SAID HE WOULD STAY WITH US.

SIR, IN THE NEXT TWO MINUTES OR SO OF OUR BROADCAST, I REALIZE YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, BUT I DID WANT TO GET YOUR VIEWS ON THE HAPPENINGS IN EGYPT.

>> WELL, I DON'T PROFESS TO BE AN EXPERTS ON THE POLICIES IN EGYPT, BUT I DO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION ABOUT IT.

AND MY VIEW IS THAT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT MUBARAK HAS TO GO, EVEN THOUGH TODAY HE SURPRISED EVERYBODY BY SAYING HE WAS GOING TO RESIGN AND WHEN HE GAVE HIS SPEECH, NOT RESIGNING.

AND I THINK TOMORROW IS A VERY CRITICAL DAY.

BECAUSE IF THE CROWD, WHICH APPARENTLY, IF THE PROTESTORS APPARENTLY ARE EXTREMELY UNHAPPY WITH THE GE.ES OF TODAY, IF THEY TRY TO MOVE TOWARD THE PRESIDENTIAL PALACE OR TO BECOME MORE VIOLENT, THEN THE ARMY IN ISRAEL IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.

>> ARMY IN EGYPT?

>> EXCUSE ME.

>> LET ME MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.

>> THANKS FOR CORRECTING ME.

THE ARMY IN EGYPT IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.

AND THEY'LL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER TO BACK THE PEOPLE OR WHETHER TO STOP THE PEOPLE.

AND IT COULD GET VERY BAD IF THE ARMY TRIES TO STOP THE PEOPLE.

ULTIMATELY I BELIEVE WHAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO RESULT IN IS THE ARMY TAKING CONTROL AND ESTABLISHING ORDER AND THEN ASSURING A PROPER ORDERLY PROCESS TOWARD OPEN AND FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.

THAT IS THE BEST OUTCOME AND WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO HOPE FOR THAT.

BUT TOMORROW COULD BE A KEY DAY DEPENDING ON HOW THE ARMY REACTS TO WHAT MAY DEVELOP.

>> TOMORROW BEING FRIDAY THE 12th IN CASE VIEWERS SEE THIS AT A LATER DATE.

DO YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT HAS HANDLED THIS SITUATION AS BEST AS CAN BE DONE?

>> I THINK THERE'S BEEN A FEW MISSTEPS AND CERTAINLY WHEN SOME OF THE INFORMATION HAS COME FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE, AND OTHERS HAVE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THEY'VE TRULY UNDERSTOOD WHAT HAPPENED OR EVEN SAW THIS COMING.

I UNDERSTAND THE FACT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS CAUTIOUS AT FIRST, AND I UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT NOW HE'S SEEN CLEARLY THAT MUBARAK HAS TO LEAVE, AND THAT HE'S MAKING THAT VERY CLEAR.

SO ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE CRITICIZING HIM FOR NOT SEEING THIS AHEAD OF TIME OR FOR NOT REACTING AS STRONGLY AS HE IS NOW EARLY ON, I PERSONALLY UNDERSTAND WHY HE WAS CAUTIOUS AND CAREFUL, AND I'M NOT THROWING ANY BARBS HIS DIRECTION FOR THAT.

>> I MISSPOKE, TOMORROW WOULD BE THE 11th, THOUGH FOR YOU IT'S PROBABLY THE 11th ALREADY.

>> IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.

>> SENATOR, THANK YOU.

I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO BE HERE AND STAYING WITH US.

WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND REFORMS RECOMMENDATION AND OTHER LINKS ON THE DIALOGUE WEBSITE.

CHECK IT OUT, GO TO IDAHOPTV.ORG AND CLICK ON "DIALOGUE."

THANK YOU FOR TUNING IN.

AND JOIN US NEXT TIME FOR "DIALOGUE."

Captioning performed by LNS Captioning www.LNScaptioning.com